Ivermectin trials fraud
Below is a comprehensive analysis by retired cardiologist Dr. Michael Goodkin regarding the rampant fraud in many of the large ivermectin trials. It is reproduced here in its entirety for information only. This is not a legal or medical advice. Use it at your own discretion.
FLCCC refers to Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance . FLCCC is dedicated to helping prevent and treat COVID, and to help patients take charge of other areas of their health. You can learn more about FLCCC and its work at https://covid19criticalcare.com/
"I have a new attachment which I think Canadian physicians can use to fight those who are preventing the use of ivermectin. I suspect that those torturing you won't read it or will ignore it
but it should give physicians a legal case that what is going on is based on fraud." -Michael
IVERMECTIN, PAXLOVID AND MOLNUPIRAVIR FOR COVID
IVERMECTIN, PAXLOVID AND MOLNUPIRAVIR FOR COVID
I'm sure you have read a lot about ivermectin for COVID. Every trial seems to say ivermectin is ineffective for COVID, especially the 5 large randomized trials. The table shows the treatment in those trials and the FLCCC recommendations.
TOGETHER COVID-OUT ACTIV-6 400 ACTIV-6 600 PRINCIPLE FLCCC
WHERE McMaster Univ. NIH. NIH. Oxford US FROM Canada Minnesota. Duke. Duke London
Dose 0.4 0.43 0.34 0.6 0.33 0.54 mgkg (Average)
Dose limit 36 63 35 70 30 None (Mg)
Days 3 3 3 6 3 5 of treatment
Cumulative 1.2 1.29 1.03 3.6 0.99 2.7 Dose (Mg/kg)
Days until 3.8 4.8 6 5+ 5 As soon as Treatment Possible
Taken on Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Taken with Empty or after Stomach a meal
Results Beneficial Failed Effective Failed Effective N/A but failed but Given at but Declared Statistically Declared 5+ days of. Ineffective Ineffective Omicron
I
THE COVID VARIANTS PRESENT DURING THE 5 LARGE RANDOMIZED IVERMECTIN TRIALS
Before getting into the data it’s important to know the timetable of the variants.
1. Alpha was dominant in the US until June 2021.
2. Delta started to dominate in the US in June 2021. It was 37% on 6/21/21 and 96% on 8/6/21. It had gotten to Great Britain earlier. 3. TOGETHER began 3/23/21 and reported its results 8/6/21. It had alpha and a nasty gamma variant, P.1 in Brazil. 4. COVID OUT began in 5/21/21 and stopped enrollment 1/28/22. It started with alpha, had almost all delta by August then starting in December, had omicron.
5. ACTIV-6 400 began 6/23/21 with mainly alpha and 37% delta which quickly went to 99%. Omicron came along mid December. The trial ended 2/1/22.
6. PRINCIPLE started 6/23/21 and ended 7/1/22. Delta was already dominant in the beginning then omicron began to dominate in late December.
7. ACTIV-6 600 began 2/16/22 and ended 7/22/22.
3/23/21 5/21/21 6/23/21 8/6/21 12/15/21 1/28/2 2/1/22 2/18/22 7/1/22 7/22/22
—-TOGETHER——
———COVID-OUT——
———-ACTIV-6 400——
————-PRINCIPLE———
——— ACTIV-6 600—-
—ALPHA———-
—DELTA—
————OMICRON——————
PATTERNS IN THE USE OF IVERMECTIN IN THE FIVE LARGE RANDOMIZED IVERMECTIN TRIALS COMPARED TO THE FLCCC ALLIANCE
1. The FLCCC Alliance is an organization started by academic physicians who felt the truth about COVID was not being told to the public and physicians. It was led by Dr. Paul Marik, the most published intensivist in the US and former director of the University of Wisconsin ICU, Dr. Pierre Kory. They were expert on all areas of COVID but were especially known for their knowledge of ivermectin for COVID. Dr. Kory testified to the US senate 12/8/20 about the value of ivermectin for COVID. Their ivermectin recommendations were based on their interactions with physicians and scientists all over the world.
Their expertise with ivermectin for COVID was known to everyone of significance involved with COVID. NIH sponsored ACTIV-6 400 trial 2nd author, Dr. David Boulware asked Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president, a month before ACTIV-6 ivermectin started, about the dosing of ivermectin then ignored everything Dr. Kory said, everything on the FLCCC website and claimed on Twitter than Dr. Kory felt that their dosing was "totally reasonable". That was "totally false”.
2. The 4 major trials, TOGETHER, COVID-OUT, ACTIV-6 400 and PRINCIPLE all began prior to omicron. Omicron was less virulent and led to a shorter, less severe illness and less Long COVID but needed to be treated very early to see any benefit. The trials which started prior to omicron gave ivermectin for 3 days while the FLCCC recommended it for 5 days. Each treated multiple variants, including a virulent variant, gamma P.1 in TOGETHER and delta in COVID-OUT, ACTIV-6 AND
PRINCIPLE. The virulent variants needed higher doses of ivermectin than usual to be effective.
3. The average doses in the 4 large randomized trials which started prior to omicron were very close to each other, 330-430 mcg/kg. The cumulative doses were also close, 990 mcg/kg to 1290 mcg/kg, quite a coincidence. The average FLCCC dose was 540 mcg/kg and the cumulative recommended dose 2700 mcg/ kg., 2.4 times the average dose in the 4 trials which started before omicron.
Either the FLCCC was recommending a higher dose than necessary or an appropriate dose. Either the 4 trials were recommending the correct dosing or too low a dose. Since all 4 trials came to the conclusion that ivermectin was ineffective, it appears highly likely that their dosing was too low and the FLCCC Alliance’s recommended dosing was appropriate. As we will see below, all 4 of these trials knew that a much higher dose of ivermectin was safe and should have expected a higher dose would be more effective. Given that COVID was an emergency, especially with the virulent variants and it was known that much higher doses were safe, why would any trial risk underdosing the patients? Could the underdosing in all 4 trials have been an accident? Very unlikely.
4. ACTIV-6 600 actually gave patients a 3600 mcg /kg cumulative dose, 3 times that of ACTIV-6 400 and it was well tolerated. It showed no benefit. Doesn’t that prove that a higher dose of ivermectin would not have shown benefit in ACTIV-6 400? The answer is NO. ACTIV-6 600 treated all omicron patients while ACTIV-6 400 treated mostly delta patients. We’ll go into that later.
5. All 4 trials gave ivermectin on an empty stomach when the blood level of their typical 30 mg. dose would have been expected to be 157% higher when taken with a fatty meal(Guzzo et al. J Clin Pharmacol 2002;42(10): 1122-33)
6. They got the trial medicine to patients very late, at an average of 4.9 days into symptoms. About half would not have qualified to get paxlovid. Most people get paxlovid at 1-2 days of symptoms.
7. TOGETHER, ACTIV-6 and PRINCIPLE limited the dose in those above 90, 90 and 84 kg. weight respectively to 36,35 and 30 mg respectively. Overweight patients were at higher risk and had their ivermectin dose limited for no medical reason while COVID-OUT which started 2 months after TOGETHER and a month before ACTIV-6, had a very high weight limit ot 160 kg, 352 lbs and a 63 mg dose limit.
8. In December 2021 there was an omicron surge. There were 924 patients, over 90% of whom had had delta prior to the surge and 667 patients, 94% of whom had omicron once the surge started.
9. The ACTIV-6 600 trial was done in all omicron patients, starting 2/18/22. ivermectin showed minimal benefit. The placebo group was ill for 8 days. Ivermectin was given at 5+ days of symptoms when nothing would have been effective at any dose.
10. Ivermectin proponents had claimed that ivermectin had failed in the 3 large randomized trials reported to date mainly due to severe underdosing. In a JAMA Network editorial
2/20/23, the JAMA editor in chief, Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo claimed that the results of ACTIV-6 600 refuted those claims. That was preposterous. Ivermectin as we will see had shown a 91-98% chance of benefit in ACTIV-6 400. Why would triple the dose be much less effective?
11. In ACTIV-6 600 1206 omicron patients who were treated at 5+ days of symptoms and given a 3.6 mg/kg cumulative dose of ivermectin had very little benefit.
In ACTIV-6 400, 627 of the last 667 patients had omicron, The ACTIV-6 400 omicron patients got a 1.2 mg/kg cumulative dose of ivermectin at 6 days of symptoms and therefore had even less benefit than the omicron patients in ACTIV-6 600.
It means that for the study to show a 98% or even 91%chance of benefit with 627 patients with almost no benefit at the end of the trial, the patients prior to omicron had to have shown a lot of benefit.
It means that ivermectin showed benefit in the delta patients and not the omicron patients. It had to have been seen in real time by the investigators but was hidden. There was nothing in the paper which suggests that as would be expected the different variants responded differently to ivermectin. Why would anyone expect the different variants to respond exactly the same to ivermectin?
12. It turns out that ivermectin was effective in those first 924 patients, 90+% delta and ineffective in the last 667 patients, 94% omicron. The investigators ran ACTIV-6 600 for no other reason than to make ivermectin falsely appear to be ineffective.
They knew ivermectin would fail in omicron patients when given at 5+ days because they had seen it fail in the omicron patients of ACTIV-6 400 in real time prior to the beginning of ACTIV-6 600.
13. Had the 3.6 mg/kg cumulative dose of ivermectin from ACTIV-6 600, which was known to be safe, actually been used in ACTIV-6 400 from the beginning, it would have crushed COVID in the delta patients. ACTIV-6 400 would have been stopped at 600 patients because of marked benefit and ivermectin would be in widespread use today.
THE INDIVIDUAL LARGE RANDOMIZED IVERMECTIN TRIALS
1. TOGETHER was run out of McMaster University in Canada. The patients were treated in Brazil. They started by giving ivermectin for a ridiculous 1 day. After lots of complaints they went to 3 days but refused to go to 5 days. They started with the alpha variant but many had a nasty gamma variant, P.1. Underdosed, given on an empty stomach and given late in those randomized to ivermectin in 1358 patients, ivermectin showed benefit but it was barely statistically insignificant.
There was a lot of squabbling about the data. The Cato group thought ivermectin had shown significant benefit. Some believe that the trial was mainly sponsored by Bill Gates who made $500 million on Moderna stock and had every incentive to see ivermectin fail, Massive conflict of interest has been documented. Believe it or not, TOGETHER was later bought by Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX.
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients ...
2. COVID-OUT underdosed ivermectin and gave it late. It claimed that metformin lowered Long COVID 41% and ivermectin lowered it 5%. Metformin treated patients had 6.3% Long COVID while the metformin placebo group had 10.4% Long COVID, 28% higher than ivermectin's placebo group of 8.1%. How can that be? Ivermectin lowered Long COVID to 7.7%. Had the placebo groups been reversed. Ivermectin would have shown 26% lower Long COVID and metformin 22%. Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and ...
3. ACTIV-6 400: On 8/621 the TOGETHER group announced that ivermectin at 400mcg/kg on an empty stomach for 3 days had failed to show statistically significant benefit in 1358 patients. At that time ACTIV-6-400 was actually giving an average of 348 mcg/kg dose to those under 90 kg and 35 mg. to those over 90 kg. While TOGETHER gave an average of 414 mcg/kg to those under 90 kg and 36 mg to those weighing above 90 kg.
Instead of adding a high dose arm or restarting the trial with a much higher dose of ivermectin, ACTIV-6 then gave over 1400 more patients a lower dose of ivermectin than the one which had failed in TOGETHER. Hard to believe.
In October 2021 NIH chairman, Dr. Francis Collins, NIAID deputy director, Dr. Cliff Lane, principal investigator, Dr. Susanna Maggie and the WCG IRB were emailed that the patients were getting 40% of The FLCCC dosing on an empty stomach. TOGETHER had already shown no statistical benefit and ACTIV-6 was using a lower dose. Dr. Lane responded that
they were looking into it. The NIH ACTIV committee voted to make no changes.
In ACTIV-6 400, ivermectin was to be determined to be effective if it showed at least a 95% chance of benefit in all 1591 patients or any of the 5 interim evaluations every 300 patients. It showed a 98% chance of benefit in the 1591 patients so the investigators
changed the primary endpoint to 28 days, which was highly unethical. Ivermectin still showed a 91% chance of benefit, not statistically significant The authors said it could not be recommended. Anyone would have gladly taken a drug with a 91% chance of benefit rather than get no treatment.
The investigators NEVER reported ANY of the 5 interim analyses . Ivermectin was effective for delta and not omicron. Ivermectin clearly would have shown benefit at 900 and probably 600 patients. The actual trial data is needed. It can be obtained by a subpoena from the house select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic or in discovery in a lawsuit would corroborate the allegations.
Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained ...
ACTIV-6 400 ended 2/1/22 and ACTIV-6 600 ended 7/27/22. Both were supposed to report on whether the 3 drugs they studied, ivermectin, fluvoxamine and fluticasone had an effect on Long COVID. Where is the data?
Dr. Pierre Kory gives us an overview of the egregiously fraudulent ACTIV-6 ivermectin trial from 5:00-17:40 of this video. New Variants, ACTIV-6 Trial and I-RECOVER Update
4.. ACTIV-6 600 was done for no other reason than to make ivermectin falsely appear ineffective. They knew from seeing ACTIV-6 400 in real time that ivermectin had no chance to work in omicron patients when given at 5+ days. Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on ...
That the ACTIV-6 600 trial proved that ivermectin hadn't failed in earlier trials due to underdosing as alleged by JAMA editor in chief, Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo is laughable. ACTIV-6 600 treated all omicron. ACTIV-6 400 treated over 50% delta in which it was effective. It’s sad that no one in academic medicine said anything about Dr. Bibbin-Domingo's preposterous claim. At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19
The only good thing about wasting taxpayer money on the ACTIV-6 600 trial is that it proved that ivermectin was beneficial for delta and not for omicron which the investigators hid. It also helped prove that the investigators intentionally sabotaged ivermectin. In some countries the ACTIV-6 ivermectin investigators would be executed.
5. In PRINCIPLE, the abstract said that ivermectin did not show benefit and shouldn't be studied again. That was fraudulent. Ivermectin shortened the duration of illness a statistically significant 2 days and buried in the 400 pages of supplemental data was highly statistically significant data that ivermectin decreased Long COVID 36%, even when severely underdosed, given on an empty stomach and given very late. C19ivm.com
Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes
Dr. Pierre Kory reviews PRINCIPLE
The Last of the Big Seven Fraudulent Ivermectin Studies Has Just Been Published
PAXLOVID
1. Paxlovid is a 3CL protease inhibitor like ivermectin is made by Pfizer. It is the dominant antiviral in use in the US. Per Dr. Rajesh Gandhi of MGH, “ In the study(EPIC-HR), it was found that people who got Paxlovid, compared with people who got the placebo, had an 88 percent reduction in their progression of going to the hospital or a doctor. This is what got Paxlovid [its initial emergency use authorization] in the U.S. [Editor’s Note: The FDA reviewed results of EPIC HR in late 2021, prior to their publication in early 2022.]” It got an EUA in late Dec 2021. The trial studied all high risk unvaccinated Delta patients treated at an average of 3 days of symptoms. The EUA extended to omicron patients which started in mid Dec 2021, even though there were no omicron patients studied in EPIC HR.. The theory was that COVID was COVID and paxlovid would work for all variants. It's not that simple.
2. Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with ...
2. Ivermectin even when underdosed, given on an empty stomach and given at 6 days of symptoms showed benefit in the delta patients in ACTIV-6 400. People were sick much longer with delta but it responded much better to antivirals than omicron. In ACTIV-6 600 in all omicron patients, the placebo group was only sick for 8 days on average. Ivermectin given at a 3 times higher dose to all omicron patients but at 5+ days of symptoms in ACTIV-6 600 showed very little benefit. It proves that Omicron needs to be treated much earlier than delta did which by now is obvious to everyone.
3. Paxlovid has no randomized trial data showing benefit in the highest risk patient with omicron and its descendants, those 65 and older and those who are immunocompromised, who make up 18% and 3% of the US population respectively,
The only large randomized trial of paxlovid in omicron patients was EPIC SR, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 93% of the patients were under 65. It was studied in medium and high risk patients. Paxlovid showed no benefit in decreasing symptoms. Millions of americans younger than 65 and not immunocompromised have taken paxlovid at $530 -1390 a person cost to the government and insurers, gotten no benefit and had paxlovid related side effects of a bad metallic taste and rebound.
4. Retrospective, observational data which is not as good as uncorrupted prospective, randomoized data, suggests that paxlovid is beneficial in the highest risk patients, the elderly and immunocompromised.
5. For all practical purposes that means that paxlovid is potentially beneficial only in those 65 and over or immunocompromised, 21% of the US population, 62 million elderly americans plus 10 million immunocompromised patients and not beneficial in the rest, 79% of the US population, 258 million people.
We need to find a drug that is a lot better than paxlovid. We have one but it was sabotaged by criminals in academic medicine.
MOLNUPIRAVIR
1. Molnupiravir is the oral prodrug of beta-D-N4- hydroxycytidine (NHC), a ribonucleoside that has shown antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in some clinical trials.
2. Molnupiravir got an EUA in Dec 2021 based on the results of the MOVe-OUT trial in patients treated within 5 days of symptoms.
3. From IDSA COVID recommendations: “The PANORAMIC trial enrolled nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe disease during a period when the Omicron variant was circulating.9 Ninety-four percent of the patients had received at least 3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. The study found that the use of molnupiravir plus usual care did not reduce the occurrence of the primary composite outcome of hospitalization or death compared to usual care alone. The proportion of patients who met this composite outcome was 1% in both arms. Molnupiravir plus usual care was superior to usual care alone for several secondary clinical endpoints. For example, the time to self-reported recovery was substantially shorter in people who received molnupiravir plus usual care than in people who received usual care alone (median of 9 days vs. 15 days).
Because the PANORAMIC trial was an open-label study with self reported symptoms, the findings are less reliable than those from a placebo-controlled trial.”
Those randomized to molnupiravir in PANORAMIC received it at an average of 2 days, giving molnupiravir the best possible chance to show benefit. Interestingly, in PRINCIPLE, the patients got ivermectin at an average of 5 days despite both trials being run by Professor Christopher Butler. Ivermectin would have done far better in PRINCIPLE had patients received it at an average of 2 days like in PANORAMIC.
The first half of the trial had a very high percentage of delta patients. We saw that ivermectin showed significant benefit in the delta patients at similar dosing in ACTIV-6 when given at an average of 6 days. If given at an average of 2 days, it would have crushed COVID in the delta patients and maybe been effective in the omicron patients.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE FRAUD IN THE LARGE RANDOMIZED IVERMECTIN TRIALS?
1. The result of the fraud regarding ivermectin is that the vast majority of the planet's 8 billion patients had ivermectin recommended against in the 28 months since ivermectin should have been declared effective in ACTIV-6, 33 months since TOGETHER announced its results. Had TOGETHER declared ivermectin was beneficial. Ivermectin could have been used for 4 months of Delta and would have wound up being used for omicron.
Conservatively, since ivermectin should have been declared effective in ACTIV-6, there have been 5 billion omicron infections around the world, the vast majority of whom received no treatment. They all could have been treated with ivermectin. It appears very likely that those patients would have benefitted from ivermectin given as early as possible at FLCCC doing. 500 million cases of Long COVID would have been expected, many of which probably could have been prevented by early and appropriately dosed ivermectin based on the PRINCIPLE trial results.
2. Assuming americans get COVID about every 3 years, 200 million americans would have been expected to have gotten COVID since ivermectin should have been declared effective in ACTIV-6. 20 million of those would have been expected to have gotten Long COVID.
Ivermectin should have been found effective in ACTIV-6 based on the actual data. Like paxlovid and molnupiravir which got EUAs in Dec2021 based on studies in all delta patients, ivermectin should also have gotten an EUA in Dec 2021 and been used in omicron patients like paxlovid and molnupiravir.
It is unknown how well ivermectin would have done in omicron patients if underdosed and given late. Patients would have figured out to take it early and many would have figured out to take it at the FLCCC dosing. It seems very likely that it would have done as well or better than paxlovid, especially in those patients who got no treatment.
100 million americans had paxlovid recommended for them. For all practical purposes, only the elderly and immunosuppressed had potential for benefit, 72 million people. For the 28 million non elderly or immunocompromised people for whom ivermectin was recommended, they had the potential to suffer with paxlovid related side effects with no chance of benefit while the government paid $530 for each of those patient to be treated.
Large numbers of americans had paxlovid prescribed when they were not at the highest risk and had no potential benefit. The
The 100 million americans who had no oral treatment recommended certainly would have done better by taking ivermectin. FDA and NIH knew full well that they had sabotaged ivermectin in the ACTIV-6 trials and colluded to TOGETHER, COVID-OUT and PRINCIPLE to try to convince the entire planet that ivermectin was ineffective.
WHO ELSE KNOWS ABOUT THE FRAUD WHICH WENT ON WITH IVERMECTIN?
1. The IDSA, ACP and ACC have been sent the evidence of fraud multiple times and done nothing. So has the BMJ. Academic medicine is now run by criminals, some of whom colluded with the government to sabotage an effective COVID drug. The rest of those in academic medicine certainly should had studied the trials and spoken up. Many have no idea what is going on. Many in academic medicine, when confronted with the fraud by the ACTIV-6 investigators, covered it up. It probably
has something to do with the $135-178 billion HHS paid to various medical organizations and physicians during COVID by HHS.
https://www.americaoutloud.news/covid-19-government-relief funds-turned-the-healthcare-industry-on-its-head/
2. Some of you may have read the review in March 2024 of ivermectin data by the Cochrane Group, reputedly the world's top data analysts.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
In 2022 they concluded that ivermectin was ineffective but many thought they hadn’t analyzed many important trials and believed they were compromised.
In March 2024, they claimed there was not evidence of benefit of ivermectin. They reviewed TOGETHER but did not review PRINCIPLE, ACTIV-6 400, ACTIV-6 600 and COVID-OUT the 1st, 2nd and 4th and 5th largest randomized ivermectin trials with almost 6000 patients. They cannot make an informed judgement without the data from those trials. It would appear that they intentionally did not comment on those trials because they would have had to commented on the obvious fraud and collusion.
Their review made no mention of the significance of the different variants which were treated and chose to lump all of the variants together. They failed to mention anything about dosing, taking ivemectin with food or the timing of treatment.
They have been written to about the harm they caused with their slipshod, deceptive, incompetent evaluation of ivermectin. It suggests corruption.
Right now you can’t trust anyone in leadership in medicine or the high profile medical journals. Some of them colluded with government to sabotage ivermectin. Most of them did little due diligence and have no idea what happened in the ivermectin trials. Many were shown what happened and won’t open their mouths.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE FRAUD IN THE LARGE RANDOMIZED IVERMECTIN TRIALS
1. Hopefully all the physicians who were penalized for prescribing ivermectin can fight back with this data which is based solely on the actual trial data. The medical boards who attacked them will have a terrible time defending their actions and have liability for their actions which can be proven to have harmed patients. Those medical boards should have a legal obligation to notify all physicians in their state of the fraud involved in those trials so that physicians can offer the best possible care to their COVID patients.
NO PHYSICIAN SHOULD BE AFRAID TO DO THE BEST FOR THEIR PATIENTS INCLUDING ORDERING IVERMECTIN IF APPROPRIATE.
2. Ivermectin has never been given earlier than at 5+ days of symptoms in omicron patients in any randomized trial. The public and physicians should be clamoring for a randomized
trial to be done by someone independent of the government and drug companies involving patients with mild to moderate COVID treated within 5 days of symptoms and randomized to the FLCCC dosing of ivermectin or standard doses of paxlovid or monupiravir. It will settle the issue once and for all and hopefully result in a cheap, safe, generic drug being recommended for everyone with COVID.
3. There will be a lot of resistance to doing such a trial because if it is proved that ivermectin was more effective than paxlovid and molnupiravir, it would destroy the sales of antivirals and vaccines, further corroborate the fraud perpetrated by everyone involved in ACTIV-6 and establish that massive damages are do those who suffered due to the fraud in ACTIV-6.
4. We could demand that based on government fraud, the FDA give ivermectin emergency use authorization. With no omicron data that is very unlikely to happen. Of course paxlovid and molnupiravir got EUAs to treat omicron with no omicron data.
5. The case could be referred to the house select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, the trial data could be subpoenaed and there could be hearings.
6. Lawyers could sue ACTIV-6, most likely under the "False Claims Act". The FCA allows private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits) against those who have defrauded the government. Duke, Vanderbilt and all the others involved could be proven to have committed fraud against US citizens and the government. It would be very tricky since those people acted on behalf of the government.
If attorneys found a way to proceed with the case, those involved with ACTIV-6 could easily be proven guilty but right now damages would be hard to collect as there is no data showing the benefit for ivermectin in omicron and its successors. A trial of ivermectin showing benefit for omicron and superiority over paxlovid and molnupiravir would insure massive compensatory and punitive damages for the 200 million americans who got COVID and the 20 million who got Long COVID and had ivermectin fraudulently recommended against by the NIH and FDA. The Long COVID patients would warrant very high compensation.
7. The terrible fraud involved the FDA, NIH, McMaster University. University of Minnesota, the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Oxford, principal investigators, Dr. Edward Mills of McMaster, Dr. Carolyn Bramante of University of Minnesota, Drs. Adrian Hernandez and Susanna Naggie of Duke, Dr. Christopher Butler of Oxford, The New Englamd Journal of Medicine, JAMA , the Journal of Infection and the hundreds of investigators involved in these trials, including 73 directly involved in ACTIV-6 and the 93 ACTIV-6 physician site directors. If all ACTIV-6 participants were sued, there would be whistleblowers.
ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED IN ACTIV-6 IVERMECTIN DESERVE THE STRONGEST CONDEMNATION POSSIBLE AND THE HARSHEST PENALTIES ALLOWED.